So I finally played in an ITC tournament, and I wanted to see where a win would place me (114 points if I did my math correctly), I started looking at the math and realized what a weird system the ITC has in place for rankings. Long story short, I spent an evening going over the points, players and factions for the ITC and noticed a few things:

There are two Categories of players at the top Winners and Attenders

The first thing that jumped out at me while looking at the lists is there are two classes of people near the top, winners; people who win a significant number of the tournaments they attend, and attenders; people who have participated in a lot of events. It's possible attenders are also winners, but the way ITC limits points to the best five games we really don't know. A few examples:

The number 3 tau player has 6 events reported 5 of which count towards points, and has a score of 447, which means he probably finished in the winners circle in at least 3 of his tournaments and placed well in the others.

The number 2 tau player has 13 matches, and his five best total to 463. This means that he had 4 probable first or second places and a lower finish in his top 5. This also means that his other matches were worse than his worst match in his top 5, which in all probability means he is playing at a lower level than the number 3 player. Effectively he has gotten on base more because he has been at bat more.

No single faction appears overwhelmingly dominant

This one actually surprised me a little, the highest any single player achieved score wise is 748.73 (remember this is a total of points for the five best Tournaments a player had) which I will assume is pretty close to the maximum anyone can achieve. However when I looked at specific factions, most were below the 500 mark, and aside from an outlier the ones above 500 were fairly close to 500. There are a few lessons in here, no faction comes close to winning all of their games, and to be one of the top players you can't stick to one faction. Both of which imply either some level of rock paper scissors style balance or being forced to adapt to a changing meta.

The Big 4 aren't all who you think they are, and it should probably be the Big 7

The top four armies are in order: Space Marines, Chaos daemons (summoning shenanigans), Eldar, Dark Angels (probably ravenwing/super friends, but it's not called out specifically), followed by necrons and Tau tied for fifth. The Imperial knights are closer to the top six then the 11 below them thus my recommendation of a Big 7 if we are going to include tau or necrons in the list. This is based on a combination of the highest rated 50 players average score per top five Tournaments they attended (representing average performance by good players), and the highest score for the faction (representing peak performance).

You can see the end results here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hZb7l2HT9ut82hJ9Q1kjBb88mT_gXLmHCHbYrfUPd8c
and the raw data here https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GqTx3FjGqJZmZkmtqO_AP_Ny87mtKYv9fz8qwRXkDpY

For the spreadsheet challenged: http://imgur.com/gallery/hvXgw which list them in descending order (ie: worst to best, sorry blood angels but you kind of knew it already)

There were two things I had to tweak for this, first I excluded players with a single event, because of how hit or miss those tended to be. I would have liked to exclude all players with less than 5, but most factions didn't have enough players at that level for a comparison. Second I had to exclude Matt Root from the Ad mech rankings, he was a few too many Stdevs outside of the rest of ad mech players, and single handedly broke my ratings system for ad mech. I have no doubt Ad mech are as good as he makes them look, but only for a player as exceptional as he is (and he is the number 1 player by a long shot).

A few other random musings;

Space wolves did much worse than I expected, the top players were solid but the majority of players did not do well. I guess it goes to show they are indeed a hard to master list (which experienced space wolves players have been saying for a while), and that charge all the things with TWC is not a sufficient enough strategy to consistently win on it's own.

I don't have much chaos in my local meta and after seeing daemons I'm kind of glad. I suspect they are that highly rated based on the strength of summoning, which is basically free points. Summoning was a large enough issue in AoS that they had to gut it when they added points, and I suspect we will see something like that style of change in 40k if we ever see an 8th ed.

Tau and Necrons being tied amuses me, as at least on these boards and in my local meta, they are pretty intense rivals. The fact they are so close in capability might explain part of that, well that and they are both kind of outsiders in the 40k fluff.

Both the events I've attended claim they've reported their data, but their numbers haven't shown up in the rankings yet. I'm not sure if it's common for people to lie about reporting the numbers, common for numbers to get reported and not posted for months, or if I just had crappy luck in the events I attended.

In any event, from the rankings I see, it seems like your conclusions seem correct. I also got the impression that the top players in each faction seem pretty close to one another, which makes me think codex gap isn't as bad as you might think, but I could be incorrect.

All the restrictions do is show that, even with a bunch of them, the Eldar codex is still broke.

Eldar are strong, and excluding the very likely monolist chaos daemons, they would be number 2. However they are beatable, which is one of the encouraging things about this look at the data.

Doesn't ITC have several house rules that affects balance in the first place? Is there anywhere to compare how the raw GW codexes pan out one against each other?

It's not too bad overall, outside of the tau, ITC just tried to clarify rules as opposed to changing them outright. The base Tau codex is a cluster, and to put it mildly the FAQ was controversial. Rather than digging that horse up for another round of beatings, I'll just say this is the only repository of it's kind, and the other tournament's also have special rules, so it would be hard to get a vanilla comparison.

The biggest factor is missions as those tend to make or break an army depending on how you set things up. You could play with raw 40k rules, but the mission you pick is definitely going to have an effect.

BA are worse than Skitarri. Hilarious.

I was actually really sad to see skitarii that far down, as I had thought about starting an ad mech Maniple. As for BA, they are the CC focused SM chapter in a very shooting heavy meta, that are overcosted to a man, and are lacking any of the tricks that successful CC armies in 7th have. Most of this is from before angels blade though, so the ratings may take some time to catch up.

After playing against two G-cults this weekend I actually think they might be the new bottom of the totem pole, but that is as a necron army that is CC capable and shooting capable. They will probably give tau fits though,

They're a powerful counter to Tau if the Tau player fails to bring enough screening/overwatch units, but if the Tau do survive the initial exchange, their cheap access to Interceptor and easy access to Ignore Cover suggests the disappear-and-reappear trick could be fairly easily countered.

 Grimgold wrote:
So I finally played in an ITC tournament, and I wanted to see where a win would place me (114 points if I did my math correctly), I started looking at the math and realized what a weird system the ITC has in place for rankings. Long story short, I spent an evening going over the points, players and factions for the ITC and noticed a few things:

There are two Categories of players at the top Winners and Attenders

The first thing that jumped out at me while looking at the lists is there are two classes of people near the top, winners; people who win a significant number of the tournaments they attend, and attenders; people who have participated in a lot of events. It's possible attenders are also winners, but the way ITC limits points to the best five games we really don't know. A few examples:

The number 3 tau player has 6 events reported 5 of which count towards points, and has a score of 447, which means he probably finished in the winners circle in at least 3 of his tournaments and placed well in the others.

The number 2 tau player has 13 matches, and his five best total to 463. This means that he had 4 probable first or second places and a lower finish in his top 5. This also means that his other matches were worse than his worst match in his top 5, which in all probability means he is playing at a lower level than the number 3 player. Effectively he has gotten on base more because he has been at bat more.

No single faction appears overwhelmingly dominant

This one actually surprised me a little, the highest any single player achieved score wise is 748.73 (remember this is a total of points for the five best Tournaments a player had) which I will assume is pretty close to the maximum anyone can achieve. However when I looked at specific factions, most were below the 500 mark, and aside from an outlier the ones above 500 were fairly close to 500. There are a few lessons in here, no faction comes close to winning all of their games, and to be one of the top players you can't stick to one faction. Both of which imply either some level of rock paper scissors style balance or being forced to adapt to a changing meta.

The Big 4 aren't all who you think they are, and it should probably be the Big 7

The top four armies are in order: Space Marines, Chaos daemons (summoning shenanigans), Eldar, Dark Angels (probably ravenwing/super friends, but it's not called out specifically), followed by necrons and Tau tied for fifth. The Imperial knights are closer to the top six then the 11 below them thus my recommendation of a Big 7 if we are going to include tau or necrons in the list. This is based on a combination of the highest rated 50 players average score per top five Tournaments they attended (representing average performance by good players), and the highest score for the faction (representing peak performance).

You can see the end results here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hZb7l2HT9ut82hJ9Q1kjBb88mT_gXLmHCHbYrfUPd8c
and the raw data here https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GqTx3FjGqJZmZkmtqO_AP_Ny87mtKYv9fz8qwRXkDpY

For the spreadsheet challenged: http://imgur.com/gallery/hvXgw which list them in descending order (ie: worst to best, sorry blood angels but you kind of knew it already)

There were two things I had to tweak for this, first I excluded players with a single event, because of how hit or miss those tended to be. I would have liked to exclude all players with less than 5, but most factions didn't have enough players at that level for a comparison. Second I had to exclude Matt Root from the Ad mech rankings, he was a few too many Stdevs outside of the rest of ad mech players, and single handedly broke my ratings system for ad mech. I have no doubt Ad mech are as good as he makes them look, but only for a player as exceptional as he is (and he is the number 1 player by a long shot).

A few other random musings;

Space wolves did much worse than I expected, the top players were solid but the majority of players did not do well. I guess it goes to show they are indeed a hard to master list (which experienced space wolves players have been saying for a while), and that charge all the things with TWC is not a sufficient enough strategy to consistently win on it's own.

I don't have much chaos in my local meta and after seeing daemons I'm kind of glad. I suspect they are that highly rated based on the strength of summoning, which is basically free points. Summoning was a large enough issue in AoS that they had to gut it when they added points, and I suspect we will see something like that style of change in 40k if we ever see an 8th ed.

Tau and Necrons being tied amuses me, as at least on these boards and in my local meta, they are pretty intense rivals. The fact they are so close in capability might explain part of that, well that and they are both kind of outsiders in the 40k fluff.

Well players who are competitive wont probably play in less than 12 tournaments a year, so I don't really know if the "attender" designation means much. Competitors like to compete, and if you win all 12, your score still floats at 327 or so unless you add majors to it. Because you can only include 3 RTT's in that score and so it's 100+9 for three consecutive wins (and then modified by attendance).

So a regular attender could win every time and not be higher ranked. I like that about it because it forces the big fish in the little ponds out into the bigger ponds.

The top 5% of the ITC are elite in general because they are in fact regularly competing and honing their skill. Anyone with less than 12 events in a year is probably not in the "competitive" mold". It isn't that they dont compete. It isn't that they arent good or dont win. But I mean if you only play in a tournament every couple months...

So three scores ceom from RTT's and the rest come from Majors and GT's. To be in the top 5-10%, you are going to have to put your toe in those waters and swim with the pirahnas, and I don't mean the Tau Empire ones...though you might.

 Grimgold wrote:


The Big 4 aren't all who you think they are
Space Marines, Chaos daemons (summoning shenanigans), Eldar, Dark Angels (probably ravenwing/super friends, but it's not called out specifically), followed by necrons and Tau tied for fifth.

...who do you think we thought they were?

I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Sadly, DA aren't in the top because of lions blade, like Chaos daemons they are a monolist army, and the monolist is built around ravenwing.

I play a lions blade with my DA, I love it cause it's fluffy, brings a variety of models to the table, and is less competitive than my usual necron lists. However without skyhammer assault forces, tactical doctrines, and the other trappings of a gladius, they just aren't quite as good.

As for who I thought the big four were, Space marines, Eldar, Necrons and Tau (more or less in that order). If we exclude monolists, that is the big four.

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

It's not exactly a flash in the pan, Dark angels in general perform better than tau, and their top players are among the highest rated in the game. Champions rarely fight with a handicap, and that's reflected in this data set (with one glaring exception). I doubt the best player in the game could make blood angles a 500+ point faction. Like most things, success in 40k is a mix of opportunity and skill, and a surplus of one can make up for some lack in the other, but isn't as good as a surplus in both.

It's expensive to try and attend them all over the place. Thats how the 400+ players distinguished themselves. They didnt just compete, they did it in bigger venues. That costs some cash to do. I dont think most people will bother attempting the top spot. Why?

Well 748.73 is the current top score. Matt Root. That score means 5 wins at VERY large events. Spendy.

I've met Josh Death locally. I thought he might take it all. We shall see.

7 of the top 50 play in my meta and I know that at least one of those seven absolutely is good enough, if he could afford it or could get the time off. Anyone in that 400+ range is legit though.

I'd be interested to hear what high ranked players in ITC have to think. On other notes I think you've come across the big fundamental flaw in ITC, their ranking system is attendance based. You have to go to the big tournaments to get better scores, a local player who can't travel but is undefeated won't be able to match the score of someone with deep pockets. They say it's based on professional poker's rating system, but we don't have the same kind of community as professional poker. That's not to say I don't get why they are using it, The current format has the advantage of being simple and not requiring much data retention, but as someone who does big data for a living neither of those seem like obstacles.

I think they should have some kind of ELO system, like professional chess uses, at the very least as a supplement to the current system. It would require match by match tracking, and some math, but someone threw together an amazon cloud app to do it for heroes of the storm which has a much larger data set, and funded it with Patreon and banner ads, so we are not talking about high dollar implementations.

 Grimgold wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what high ranked players in ITC have to think. On other notes I think you've come across the big fundamental flaw in ITC, their ranking system is attendance based. You have to go to the big tournaments to get better scores, a local player who can't travel but is undefeated won't be able to match the score of someone with deep pockets. They say it's based on professional poker's rating system, but we don't have the same kind of community as professional poker. That's not to say I don't get why they are using it, The current format has the advantage of being simple and not requiring much data retention, but as someone who does big data for a living neither of those seem like obstacles.

I think they should have some kind of ELO system, like professional chess uses, at the very least as a supplement to the current system. It would require match by match tracking, and some math, but someone threw together an amazon cloud app to do it for heroes of the storm which has a much larger data set, and funded it with Patreon and banner ads, so we are not talking about high dollar implementations.

Here is the counter point though and what I would say in its defense:

Although many will not aspire to the number one ranking for the totally understandable reasons of access to games and/or money. the reality is that the systems job is to advise on two things: Given you playing your best game... what's the best you can do. It stops you from just racking up points by attending a bunch. It says NO, we want to know what your five best efforts look like.

The rating system doesnt concern itself with fairness, it concerns itself with attendance. Since the ITC started, it has SIGNIFICANTLY increased attendance at events. People who understand the rating system enjoy the challenge of seeing how far they can go.

In addition this forces them to go to bigger events and to travel outside their little fish pond at least a little bit. What good are the ratings if its just the same bully beating up on the same runny nosed kids week after bludgeoning week?

The Good side here is that the data basically tells you that on your BEST DAY, here is where you stand. And on their best days, here's where other people stand in relation. And in all this, it does the admirable next step of taking into account the levels of competition you achieved it against by forcing you to prove it against increasing odds to reach the 400+ world.

So while I will (personally) never put in the effort to get to the top of the mountain, and many will not, it gives you a true estimation of where you stand on your five best days and against the competition you CHOSE to gain it against. It's a brutally fair snap shot. Most players who are competitive will have at least 12 attempts on their resume during the year and possibly a few more than that, but 12 is going to be a pretty normal number. and only 5 of the 12 count. Same for everyone else.

Also there is a fulcrum that is invisible in ratings. In my last GT, I fought a guy who is 0-12 against me. If I win, I go on to face a guy who I have had almost equally good success against, Chancy Rickey. And...he...beat me. Seized initiative on me and his 13th game was the one he got me in (way to go Oseas Aduna! You deserved it buddy). Good for him. It's a game of inches and what was looking like a top finish turned into tenth place in the end. Them's the breaks. And so on that day I made a little headway but not much and the question becomes: do I want to keep competing and finding my best day? Or am I content where I'm at? I like the fact that you are constrantly tryng to compete against YOUR OWN best day, in increasingly larger events to try and establish a true measure of where you stand.

But "almost" counts for horse shoes and hand grenades. Not much else.

So I like the system becaue it attempts to maximize participation in the hobby. And that end, on its OWN is worthwhile. We all remember the desert of players 6th Edition encouraged, much like 8th Edition Fantasy. Many of us are veterans of this board and all the moaning and gnashing of teeth over it. the ITC does do one thing right which is that it absolutely sells people on the importance of attendance and staying involved in the hobby. It gives you something cool to shoot for.

I am outspoke that I feel the ITC overstepped on its FAQ's in places and has done a terrible job of asking its poll questions. But as for their positive impact on maxing out tournament attendance a lot of the time? They get an A+

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Okay, show me that DA player's list. $5 it has the Librarius Conclave on bikes and all Ravenwing.

Champions don't win championships, good builds win championships.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Okay, show me that DA player's list. $5 it has the Librarius Conclave on bikes and all Ravenwing.

Champions don't win championships, good builds win championships.

It is their Gladius + a couple Ravenwing Command Squads. So you're half right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That does prove their Tactical Marines are worthless without free transports though so...

 Grimgold wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what high ranked players in ITC have to think. On other notes I think you've come across the big fundamental flaw in ITC, their ranking system is attendance based. You have to go to the big tournaments to get better scores, a local player who can't travel but is undefeated won't be able to match the score of someone with deep pockets.

A local player who is undefeated doesn't really mean much. They very well may be the strongest player to ever pick up the game, but without some kind of link to the larger community, its impossible to tell if they're really that good or just a big fish in a small pond. There's just too many specifics to a local meta to derive anything meaningful from their results (maybe its somehow completely devoid of Eldar or something). Comparisons require some sort of connective tissue to have any real validity, which is exactly what the players who attend multiple large events provide.

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Its not as though the champions are showing up with half-hearted fluffy lists.
They might be using Dark Angels which are traditionally considered weaker than say Eldar... but they're taking 2+ rerollable biker squads and powerful formations.

So the guy that won the Bay Area Championship was actually playing for third place in the final round, and was playing down. His list was the Lion's Blade Strike Force:

Lion’s Blade Strike Force

Company Master: (Warlord) Fist, Artificer Armor
Chaplain: Bike, Auspex
Tactical Squad: Rhino, Grav-Cannon,
Tactical Squad: Rhino, Multi-Melta
Tactical Squad: Razorback (HB), Heavy Bolter
Tactical Squad: Razorback (HB)
Tactical Squad: Razorback (HB)
Tactical Squad: Pod, Melta/Combi-Melta
Assault Squad: 2x Flamers, Pod
Assault Squad: 2x Flamers, Pod
Devastator Squad: Rhino, Grav-Cannon
Devastator Squad: Rhino, Grav-Cannon
Scouts
Ravenwing Strike Force
Techmarine: Bike, Auspex
Ravenwing Command Squad: 5 Black Knights, Apothecary, 5 Plasma Talons, Grenade Launcher
Ravenwing Black Knight Squad: 5 Black Knights, Huntmaster, 5 Plasma Talons, Grenade Launcher
Ravenwing Darkshroud

He brought 2,260 points to a 1,850 tournament. Right off the bat, he has a force almost 20% larger then his opponents. He never played a similar list to his own, and His opponents: Daemons, Eldar, Orks, Ad Mech, GuardDar, and Imperial Knights. He was 5-0 going into the last round, and was paired down playing a 4-1 player. His opponent wasn't even in the top 8 at the end of the tournament. The only reason he won the entire tournament was the top table, playing for first and second place, tied. And with the way ITC scores matches, the first and second place players went 5-0-1, while Brandon went 6-0 playing down. I think his win was a large combination of list building and luck. If you read the interview Brandon gave at Frontline Gaming, he even admits he got lucky. His most difficult game was in the fourth round against the GuardDar army that went to time, and he won with a final score of 6-5. If the game would have been played to conclusion, he would have lost.

My opinion, Brandon is a great player, and it was a perfect storm of opponents and the final tie at the first table that allowed him to get 1st place.

D'oh Ninja'd

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/07/18/bay-area-open-live-coverage/

See, that DA list doesn't even surprise me. Gladius is just amazing, there's no denying it, and black knights/RW Command Squad are one of the single best things DA have that regular SM doesn't.

Not saying that guy isn't a good player, but list building is 40-50% of winning at 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Okay, show me that DA player's list. $5 it has the Librarius Conclave on bikes and all Ravenwing.

Champions don't win championships, good builds win championships.

It is their Gladius + a couple Ravenwing Command Squads. So you're half right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That does prove their Tactical Marines are worthless without free transports though so...

All Tac Marines are worthless without free transports. It's rather sad

Wow Tamwulf, that was an amusing read. Though in all fairness it was a mixture of absurd luck, and being really good. Though Matt Root is kind of the counter example, No other majority ad mech list has been nearly as successful. So there is definitely something special about the player. Which dove tails back to my point, it takes both a good list, good skills, and good luck to be a champ. If you have an abundance in one you can make up for a deficiency in another, but the people on the top are going to have them all.

 Grimgold wrote:
Wow Tamwulf, that was an amusing read. Though in all fairness it was a mixture of absurd luck, and being really good. Though Matt Root is kind of the counter example, No other majority ad mech list has been nearly as successful. So there is definitely something special about the player. Which dove tails back to my point, it takes both a good list, good skills, and good luck to be a champ. If you have an abundance in one you can make up for a deficiency in another, but the people on the top are going to have them all.

Exactly. There is a reason you don't see Orks and DE in the top 8 No matter how good the player you just can't compensate for a bad codex enough.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Wow Tamwulf, that was an amusing read. Though in all fairness it was a mixture of absurd luck, and being really good. Though Matt Root is kind of the counter example, No other majority ad mech list has been nearly as successful. So there is definitely something special about the player. Which dove tails back to my point, it takes both a good list, good skills, and good luck to be a champ. If you have an abundance in one you can make up for a deficiency in another, but the people on the top are going to have them all.

Exactly. There is a reason you don't see Orks and DE in the top 8 No matter how good the player you just can't compensate for a bad codex enough.

Not according to Jancoran.

Edit: NVM.

I actually agree with him more about mutilators than on codices not mattering.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Okay, show me that DA player's list. $5 it has the Librarius Conclave on bikes and all Ravenwing.

Champions don't win championships, good builds win championships.

This is a revealing statement. You discount skill to the point that you're willing to give no credit to the opponents...and...no credit to the generals involved which ended with the Dark Angels winning the Bay Area open?

We differ sharply on this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Its not as though the champions are showing up with half-hearted fluffy lists.
They might be using Dark Angels which are traditionally considered weaker than say Eldar... but they're taking 2+ rerollable biker squads and powerful formations.

So wehat. the statement was that the Dark Angels are in some way distressed...but they arent. The codex stands just fine on its own.

That some people attempt to keep using it in a way it is no longer designed for is the bigger issue. People who adapt (good generals) always make liers out fo the ones who claim its all the codex's fault. I am sooooo tired of hearing how the codex wins. It doesn't. I've managed to beat every power list known to man with not-CONSIDERED-power-lists and I can tell you its false. It's just false.

GOOD players win despite the adversity of a "gimped codex". they just do. Among my tournament winning armies for example, i have won more than any other using Sisters of Battle. Absolutely verifiable fact. Tau are a close second, and that was before they even got good!

So I am not going to sit here and give credence to the idea that someone cannot FIGURE OUT a way to win if they really want to. they just dont want to have to work that hard. Just my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
So the guy that won the Bay Area Championship was actually playing for third place in the final round, and was playing down. His list was the Lion's Blade Strike Force:

Lion’s Blade Strike Force

Company Master: (Warlord) Fist, Artificer Armor
Chaplain: Bike, Auspex
Tactical Squad: Rhino, Grav-Cannon,
Tactical Squad: Rhino, Multi-Melta
Tactical Squad: Razorback (HB), Heavy Bolter
Tactical Squad: Razorback (HB)
Tactical Squad: Razorback (HB)
Tactical Squad: Pod, Melta/Combi-Melta
Assault Squad: 2x Flamers, Pod
Assault Squad: 2x Flamers, Pod
Devastator Squad: Rhino, Grav-Cannon
Devastator Squad: Rhino, Grav-Cannon
Scouts
Ravenwing Strike Force
Techmarine: Bike, Auspex
Ravenwing Command Squad: 5 Black Knights, Apothecary, 5 Plasma Talons, Grenade Launcher
Ravenwing Black Knight Squad: 5 Black Knights, Huntmaster, 5 Plasma Talons, Grenade Launcher
Ravenwing Darkshroud

He brought 2,260 points to a 1,850 tournament. Right off the bat, he has a force almost 20% larger then his opponents. He never played a similar list to his own, and His opponents: Daemons, Eldar, Orks, Ad Mech, GuardDar, and Imperial Knights. He was 5-0 going into the last round, and was paired down playing a 4-1 player. His opponent wasn't even in the top 8 at the end of the tournament. The only reason he won the entire tournament was the top table, playing for first and second place, tied. And with the way ITC scores matches, the first and second place players went 5-0-1, while Brandon went 6-0 playing down. I think his win was a large combination of list building and luck. If you read the interview Brandon gave at Frontline Gaming, he even admits he got lucky. His most difficult game was in the fourth round against the GuardDar army that went to time, and he won with a final score of 6-5. If the game would have been played to conclusion, he would have lost.

My opinion, Brandon is a great player, and it was a perfect storm of opponents and the final tie at the first table that allowed him to get 1st place.

He won. You can splice it a hundred ways. Just like my recent bad luck at the GT, the bottom line is, he won. He didnt control any of that and he wasnt playing a cupcake in the final round. If you want to minimize someone by saying their 6-0 isnt awesome, you do that. I will not engage in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I actually agree with him more about mutilators than on codices not mattering.

Please stop misquoting me. i didn't say codex's didnt matter. I said Champions win championships. Codex's dont. you dont just get to wal kto the table and say "Eldar, i win!" The internet says so, but the internet is wrong. it got proven many times this year. Good players win more often and they win it all more often... Not because they leaned on a codex. They leaned on strong play.

" i didn't say codex's didnt matter."

You act like it. You don't have to say it.

"GOOD players win despite the adversity of a "gimped codex". they just do."

Actually, I guess you did say it.

Martel732 wrote:
" i didn't say codex's didnt matter."

You act like it. You don't have to say it.

On a forum...I need to say it. And no, I am veteran enough to know that some codex's are stronger. What you and I dont agree on is what that means. in MY vernacular, that just means you have to work harder to win. What it doesnt mean is that you can't. a good general WILL win more often and he will not need the "best" codex to do it.

And that is all the proof i need that codex's dont win. i never met a brochure that sold anyone anything and i never saw a codex make a tough decision.

Creative deployment is an answer within any codex that's "distressed". Creative unit construction, or going MSU or perhaps the diametric opposite can all be legitimate ways to overcome whatever inherent inequity there is.

the problem is inside of people who will not adapt. Who will not make any effort to do more than put a unit down and expect it do do its job, then despair when it doesn't. that mindset is why there are people in the 400+ range...and those who are not.

The ITC, which is the purpose of this thread, and how it affects on Faction strength. Thats what we are talking about. Notice though that the most populous codex among the competitive arena arent at the top. Matt Root has primarily done it with Cult Mechanicus. Brandon Grant primarily with Dark Angels. Joshua Death has done it with a MIRIAD of codex's, showing his skill level to be quite good and why I really thought he could take it all. He's like me: he can play any codex and didn't just focus on one. He played the field and still got there with Chaos Daemons, Eldar, Harlequins, Imperial Knights, and Tau Empire! That's really cool and that a lot of his points came from Harlequins for example is nifty too.

So are you going to tell Joshua Death that its the codex? Lol. Laughable. As laughable as telling me that. I did the same thing. I played Orks, Necrons, Tau Empire, Sisters of Battle and Militarum Tempestus to reach my score.

I would just encourage people to give themselves a little more credit, both for losses, and for wins.

In your FLGS skill will be the deciding factor in almost every match since there is such a large range of it. However for a tourney with 100+ people, the variance in skill levels among the 10 or 20 best players is going to be much smaller. The closer the skill of the players, the more the codex they are using is going to matter.

When We look at it in the data for the top rated armies, we see the ones we would expect to see based on the strength of the codices. Put another way, there are good players in all of the factions, when good players are matched up the codex is going to be one of the larger deciding factors.

I attended a BAO wherein the Dark Angels won and Cult Mechanicus took second. I don't agree. We saw Lictor shame win. I dont agree. We just saw Militarum Tempestus win. I dont agree.

You are absolutely free to posit that skill does not trump the codex. We will never agree. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of skill.

He's talking about when skill is equal.

skill is never equal.

I disagree. Who's better? Brees or Brady? Skill can be so close as to be impossible to discern a difference.

 Jancoran wrote:
I attended a BAO wherein the Dark Angels won and Cult Mechanicus took second. I don't agree. We saw Lictor shame win. I dont agree. We just saw Militarum Tempestus win. I dont agree.

You are absolutely free to posit that skill does not trump the codex. We will never agree. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of skill.

That Dark angels list was a white scars Gladius without the scouting and Doctrines. It is about free vehicles and everything having OS.

You can say skill matters all you want, but Gladius rules won. That made the list good, not the Dark angels themselves.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I attended a BAO wherein the Dark Angels won and Cult Mechanicus took second. I don't agree. We saw Lictor shame win. I dont agree. We just saw Militarum Tempestus win. I dont agree.

You are absolutely free to posit that skill does not trump the codex. We will never agree. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of skill.

That Dark angels list was a white scars Gladius without the scouting and Doctrines. It is about free vehicles and everything having OS.

You can say skill matters all you want, but Gladius rules won. That made the list good, not the Dark angels themselves.

You're right. i can say it. the Gladius didnt make user of terrain, he did. the Gladius didnt decide what to reserve nor whether to seek manipulation on it. it didnt tell him whether to scout or not, to attack or not, to hide or not, to shoot or not. None of it. Sorry.

Take Joshua Death, 3rd rated player overall, I think we can agree that someone that far up the rankings is a skilled player. He plays a lot of armies, and gets some very different results based on the army he is playing. If you look at his eldar score or chaos daemons score, he has almost perfect ratings for the matches he has played. If you look at his harlequins or IK ratings he is quantifiably struggling with those armies, especially compared to his performance with the two armies he has barely played.

Unless we want to split hairs and say his worst army is the army he plays the most (which is possible but not the most likely answer), the most logical explanation for his different levels of performance is the strength of the army he is playing.

It's almost like player skill is a factor AND codex is a factor. Sheesh. Welcome to Dakka where the world operates in terms of absolutes.

My two cents...

At the highest levels of player skill, a player can win more games than not against a variety of opponents using any codex. Codex choice is a factor, but is largely mitigated by top level player skill.

At all other levels of player skill, codex choice has a far greater impact. Average players will consistently win more often with a "top tier codex" compared to a "bottom tier codex".

It's sort of like arguing that weapon choice doesn't matter in a duel because a trained marksman can win more often than not with any old gun. While true, bringing a bazooka sure makes things easier.

Both sides are right, you're just arguing different situations.

Meanwhile, you'll all continue to underestimate my super clowns because we don't even make it onto the spreadsheet! Mua-ha-ha.

Yes but that is just essentially saying that the worse you are, the more you need a "safe" codex in order to play. Well that doesnt sound like a codex issue to me.

 Jancoran wrote:
Yes but that is just essentially saying that the worse you are, the more you need a "safe" codex in order to play. Well that doesnt sound like a codex issue to me.

No, it's not. It's saying with people of average skills, codex power provides a much wider swing in terms of win percentages than it does at the very peak of player skills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

jade_angel wrote:
I'm not actually surprised by your Big 4, not overly. I'm actually somewhat shocked that DA managed to rank that high - I would have thought Tau and Necrons had more options - but then, Lion's Blade is good for the same reason Gladius is, so DA are basically SM with fewer options.

Dark Angels won the Bay Area Open this year. Look folks. At some point...its about the player. Codex's dont win champiobships. Champions win championships.

Okay, show me that DA player's list. $5 it has the Librarius Conclave on bikes and all Ravenwing.

Champions don't win championships, good builds win championships.

This is a revealing statement. You discount skill to the point that you're willing to give no credit to the opponents...and...no credit to the generals involved which ended with the Dark Angels winning the Bay Area open?

We differ sharply on this point.

I didn't say the opponent or the general had no skill, I'm highly disparaging the myth that DA are this great codex. They're not, they're in the same position as Nidz, where they have 2-3 viable lists, and most of those lists involve Gladius or Ravenwing spam. Show me a winning DA list that runs primarily Deathwing.

No one said it was this "great codex". We're saying its not this steaming pile nor great. its just a codex, like the other codex's and just like the other codex's, the general is the ingredient that makes it work.

and there are those here saying that a generals skill is secondary which is absurd i nthe extreme. By that logic, None of you has an opinion worth sharing because none of your opinions are a codex! Lol. I mean REALLY think about what's being said. if the General is less important than the codex then what are we all opining for? We will simply order the tournament results by the codex chosen, and save ourselves 9 hours of gaming.

Absurd.

Kriswall,
I think the players argue mainly over the degree. Obviously a better player is more likely to win, but codex choice also is obviously important.

Notice the top dexes. They are what you expect, with the exception of IK (who are good because the ITC nerfs Str: D, I think. I can't keep up anymore). It's not Orks, DE, or CSM.

Look at the lists. They are also what I mostly expect. Lictor shame was MC spam, the DA players use gladius heavily it seems, and it goes on and on.

Look at Grimgold's breakdown about that one player. It argues pretty heavily in favor of codex having a large impact.


In WM, skill is top. Top players are top players regardless of faction with almost no exception, they don't do any worse because they switch to a different faction. That is not always so in 40k.

 Grimgold wrote:
Take Joshua Death, 3rd rated player overall, I think we can agree that someone that far up the rankings is a skilled player. He plays a lot of armies, and gets some very different results based on the army he is playing. If you look at his eldar score or chaos daemons score, he has almost perfect ratings for the matches he has played. If you look at his harlequins or IK ratings he is quantifiably struggling with those armies, especially compared to his performance with the two armies he has barely played.

Well, Joshua Death did get 133 points winning an event playing Harlequins... with an illegal list.

The biggest variable these metrics fail to reflect is army composition. There's a huge performance difference between 1850 points of Eldar versus 950 points of Eldar plus 900 points of Riptide wing. The same goes for 1850 of SM versus 1850 of SM Gladius, aka 2400 points.

 Robin5t wrote:
Meanwhile, you'll all continue to underestimate my super clowns because we don't even make it onto the spreadsheet! Mua-ha-ha.

Sorry you didn't have 50 players, but it wasn't good, not like Skitarii and BA bad, but bad.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Take Joshua Death, 3rd rated player overall, I think we can agree that someone that far up the rankings is a skilled player. He plays a lot of armies, and gets some very different results based on the army he is playing. If you look at his eldar score or chaos daemons score, he has almost perfect ratings for the matches he has played. If you look at his harlequins or IK ratings he is quantifiably struggling with those armies, especially compared to his performance with the two armies he has barely played.

Well, Joshua Death did get 133 points winning an event playing Harlequins... with an illegal list.

The biggest variable these metrics fail to reflect is army composition. There's a huge performance difference between 1850 points of Eldar versus 950 points of Eldar plus 900 points of Riptide wing. The same goes for 1850 of SM versus 1850 of SM Gladius, aka 2400 points.

Sure but that distinction is what it is. there's nothing that can be done to clarify that very easily this year. I think it wouldn't be difficult to surmise that Vincent Price for example owes much of his success tothe fact that he runs Knights alongside a Ruiptide wing as his whole list. I've played him before and tied him.

So yeah there's going to be some of that. But its still the bottom line result in the overall standings that we can look at. And from that standpoint, anyone at 400+ is a legit competitir to be reckoned with in my estimation. even below that are soem excellent players who are constantly 2nd and 3rd and may not necessarily tip overthe edge but are exceptional otherwise and so I would even say that as long as you're competing in the top 5% to 10%, you are legit in my book.

The stats for Factions themselves are good because they say "hey given the field, how good are you at this or that faction" and its another way to compete. I was thinking of playing my last few evbents of the year as Militarum Tempestus just to say i took one. Lol. Not a lot of us out there.

 Jancoran wrote:
No one said it was this "great codex". We're saying its not this steaming pile nor great. its just a codex, like the other codex's and just like the other codex's, the general is the ingredient that makes it work.

and there are those here saying that a generals skill is secondary which is absurd i nthe extreme. By that logic, None of you has an opinion worth sharing because none of your opinions are a codex! Lol. I mean REALLY think about what's being said. if the General is less important than the codex then what are we all opining for? We will simply order the tournament results by the codex chosen, and save ourselves 9 hours of gaming.

Absurd.

Jancoran, it's to a much lesser degree, but Magic the Gathering has similar problems to 40k: you have point and click armies/decks that play themselves. General skill IS important, but with certain armies/decks, it really doesn't matter.

I've been to tournaments with these point and click armies, and they literally didn't change their strategy no matter who their opponent was, the mission type, etc. That doesn't seem like a problem to you?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No one said it was this "great codex". We're saying its not this steaming pile nor great. its just a codex, like the other codex's and just like the other codex's, the general is the ingredient that makes it work.

and there are those here saying that a generals skill is secondary which is absurd i nthe extreme. By that logic, None of you has an opinion worth sharing because none of your opinions are a codex! Lol. I mean REALLY think about what's being said. if the General is less important than the codex then what are we all opining for? We will simply order the tournament results by the codex chosen, and save ourselves 9 hours of gaming.

Absurd.

Jancoran, it's to a much lesser degree, but Magic the Gathering has similar problems to 40k: you have point and click armies/decks that play themselves. General skill IS important, but with certain armies/decks, it really doesn't matter.

I've been to tournaments with these point and click armies, and they literally didn't change their strategy no matter who their opponent was, the mission type, etc. That doesn't seem like a problem to you?

Well that's a different question than the one we're answering.

If you ask me whether its a "problem" that someone FEELS they can point and click, i guess the answer is no, because i cannot concern myself with what my opponents army does or how it works. I just have to be able to diagnose it and act accordingly. There was an Eldar player at the last GT who basically wins most of his tournaments and he has such a list. he modifies it from time to time but its at its core your basic Scatbike and WraithKnight combo meal deal. he doesthe same thing which is stay at maximum range fire and jump back adn repeat, WraithKnight does its thing and whatever is left over goes to Warp Spiders or something else. The usual.

My job in our last matchup wasnt to get all tangled up worrying about whether his army was simple to run. of course it was. i just had to beat him. So i did. Tabled him. he even had the temerity to try and cut the game 14 minutes short to secure a tie and i was like "uh...no....theres three bikes for you to move in your whole army and its my turn"

So he moved his bikes, I killed them and 13 minutes to go, i won via tabling. So was it a problem? no. is it a problem if i let him auto pilot his way to victory? well yes. so that oneess is on me to stop it right? I mean he's just trying to be an effective player by choosing effective units and he's displaying somewhat of a lack of imagination by choosing an army that essentially only does one thing and should anyone have a tool (like Traitors hate provides) to handle it, he's kinda boned. So i dont think its a problem.

i think that really good generals with really good lists will wipe the floor with you. Who can dispute it. I thik poor generals can get away with one here and there just because the enemy doesnt do anything tostop them from their auto-pilot plan. I see people lose to really good lists on sheer bad luck. Nothing to do with codex's nor generalship. Sometimes thats what happens.

But the one thing i know is that any codex in the hands of a good player is good. therefore, skill is the deciding factor so much mor often than the codex.

Does it bother me when a noob cracks my skull with an auto pilot list? sure. How often does it REALLY happen? Not often enough for me to cry about it. But for some, it happening at all is seen as some kind of "proof" and I just dont agree.

 Grimgold wrote:
So there is definitely something special about the player. Which dove tails back to my point, it takes both a good list, good skills, and good luck to be a champ. If you have an abundance in one you can make up for a deficiency in another, but the people on the top are going to have them all.

Note that there is also an empathy factor. Some players just play certain armies really well, and don't mesh with other armies / playstyles.

One should never look at just a single event, but event trends. One will note that the top end lists at most events follow very similar trends. With 40k, player skill has an influence, but the list os a huge component as well, in some cases moreso, in fact often moreso. Take any top end tournament player, give em a fluffy IG infantry single CAD list or the like and pair them up against a scatterbike list or a Gladius or War Convocation or the like played by a mediocre player, and the vast majority of the time the mediocre player will win over the better general.


One also needs to realize that with the ITC, they have their own rules and restrictions and FAQ that means stuff plays out differently than "by the book" 40k, with stuff like nerfed Invisibility and detachment number restrictions and the like. So what the ITC reflects is not necessarily a perfect reflection of the game many people play, though its usually a good approximation.

I summarize your position as "codices don't matter", you say that's not correct, and then proceed to go on and on about how skill always wins out.

So when does codex actually matter? Since skill always wins out. I'm just trying to understand here.

You summarize incorrectly, as usual. Dont summarize me. it would help.

 Vaktathi wrote:
With 40k, player skill has an influence, but the list os a huge component as well, in some cases moreso, in fact often moreso. Take any top end tournament player, give em a fluffy IG infantry single CAD list or the like and pair them up against a scatterbike list or a Gladius or War Convocation or the like played by a mediocre player, and the vast majority of the time the mediocre player will win over the better general.

I'm pretty sure you could allow the IG player to use Formations, and it wouldn't greatly change the outcome, as long as all units are from the IG Codex. IOW, no Allies, no summoned Daemons...

 Jancoran wrote:
You summarize incorrectly, as usual. Dont summarize me. it would help.

Never mind.

 Jancoran wrote:
We just saw Militarum Tempestus win.

I'd be very interested in hearing more about this.

How exactly did Tempestus keep up with the powergaming factions that abuse free transports and silly formation bonuses?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
We just saw Militarum Tempestus win.

I'd be very interested in hearing more about this.

How exactly did Tempestus keep up with the powergaming factions that abuse free transports and silly formation bonuses?

617 Tempestus, 616 Eldar, 616 Tau.

Guys, he played against mono-Codex IG laden with Abhuman spam... easy win!

 deviantduck wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
We just saw Militarum Tempestus win.

I'd be very interested in hearing more about this.

How exactly did Tempestus keep up with the powergaming factions that abuse free transports and silly formation bonuses?

617 Tempestus, 616 Eldar, 616 Tau.

Oh you are such a tease.

Details please!

As far as I know, it was just spammed Taurox for a bunch of OS. It wouldn't be my exact take on a competitive list, but it is close.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
We just saw Militarum Tempestus win.

I'd be very interested in hearing more about this.

How exactly did Tempestus keep up with the powergaming factions that abuse free transports and silly formation bonuses?

My Militarum Tempestus won by using null deployment and then overwhelming a sector, then using the Transports to abate the response from the enemies (that's taking a lot of Warhammer and turning it into one sentence so...clearly...there was more to it than that). I used IG as allies to cover anti-air and melee duties and to battle enemy Psykers (which I faced when I fought Eldar)

I played against an IG player in round one, and that game was not close. He just could not stand up to the Volley guns, and the Taurox Prinms got in on his Plasma spam veterans early and often. And once you're committed to staying in those boxes and firing, it makes it progressively harder to do anything when the blob takes up space and the Deep Strikers have so many shots.

Space Marines in round 2. lots tougher. Centurion star, plus he actually had some long range blasts to throw from Thunderfire cannons. They had bolter drill, so they weren't missing much either. He did a number on me, but I essentially just shot everything that wasn't a Centurion with the Militarum Tempestus and shot just Centurions with the Blob until they went away. But I took pretty hefty casualties in that game. I think I MIGHT have had 25% of my force left when it was over.

hen against Eldar (of course) in round 3.

The Eldar in particular were not fond of the Ignores Cover the IG allies brought. Those bike squads like to run close to the table edge so a failed morale check on LD 8 and gone in one case. I bounced Fortune once in that game, which was cool (I had 10 dice to throw...hey why not). That Eldar battle was a battle i explained in another thread. The game came down to a failed charge by the Wraith KNight from about 8 inches out from my blob. That could have gone either way, but because it failed, i was able to kill it without getting tangled up. We butchered the Scatter Bikes with Ignores Cover and DS'ing Twin Linked units. The Volleyguns, once they get settled are really nice. Like really nice.

My favorite tactic was running the vehicles up and then moving them flat out to cover my men after they fired. I took 4 Taurox Primes. All of them died in most of tghe games eventually, but for a good cause. Against Eldar in particular, that worked really well because I tried to get my drops near terrain pieces, which then allowed me to form a wall with them so that I could cut them off from just moving around the vehicle to get shots on my exposed dudes.

I did a way more detailed report on this somewhere on here.

I can't find your report Jancoran, but thanks.

Also, congrats on making it work. You're definitely swimming against the current in that Eldar matchup!

Yoyoyo wrote:
I can't find your report Jancoran, but thanks.

Also, congrats on making it work. You're definitely swimming against the current in that Eldar matchup!

the report was on another thread where this similar thing came up. It was a long thread filled with acrimoney. Lol. In any event, I am actually ranked with Militarum Tempestus in the ITC. Lol. I might need to take them for a few spins just to see if I can repeat the magic. Militarum Tempestus is a very difficult list to play on its own, which is why the allies.

Here is the list I used:

• Militarum Tempestus Combined Arms Detachment

125pts 5 Tempestus Command (4 Volley Guns)
80pts Taurox Prime (Auto Cannons, Battle Cannon)

125pts 5 Tempestus Command (4 Volleyguns)
80pts Taurox Prime (Auto Cannons, Battle Cannon)

126pts 8 Scions (2 meltaguns)
80pts Taurox Prime (Auto Cannons, Battle Cannon)

126pts 8 Scions (2 meltaguns)
80pts Taurox Prime (Auto Cannons, Battle Cannon)

126pts 8 Scions (2 meltaguns)

948pts

Astra Militarum Allied Detachment
80pts Company Command Squad (4 Flamers)

75pts Primaris Psyker (Level 2, Force Staff)
75pts Primaris Psyker (Level 2, Force Staff)
50pts Primaris Psyker (Level 1, Force Staff)

25pts Ministorum Priest
25pts Ministorum Priest
25pts Ministorum Priest

160pts 2 Hydra Flakk batteries (both with Hunter Killer Missiles)

355pts 40 Imperial Guardsman (4x power Axes, 4 LasCannons, 3 Meltabombs)

30pts 5 man Platoon Command

900pts

We're not acrimonious (a sesquipedalian method of saying bitter and angry, though I would have preferred salty since slang tends to be more evocative), you just said you'd never be convinced by any amount of evidence to the contrary, so I stopped bothering. The rest of us seem to be on the same page, Skill is the largest component, but it's not the only component, and at at close levels of skill (like those found at the top of the tournament circuit) codex becomes a deciding factor. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this explanation.

A minor segway, I played Eve online, and it was fun, but I could never quite put my finger on why. One time while I was reading the bio of someone who had gate camped me, annoyed that I couldn't find a fair fight, I came across what was obviously meant to be a taunt "if you wanted a one on one you should have played chess". It was as if the scales fell from my eyes, suddenly I understood, I liked eve because it wasn't fair, everyone was out to get me, they were all better equipped than I was and had characters that had been cooking for years. My best time in eve was running for my life from goons, avoiding campers at gates, praying no one would get close enough to me to pop my cloak, doubling back on my path, letting them see me at a wormhole, it was a glorious chase, and the hate mail I got afterwards was the best part.

To circle back to 40k, it's ok that it's not fair, that's part of the fun. We don't have to pretend that skill is the great equalizer, because no matter how good you are there are certain fights where you're going to lose despite being the better player. Maybe your dice went cold, maybe your opponent had a hard counter to your list, or maybe your opponent had a better codex. Insisting your IG lost to that Taudar list because you weren't skilled enough to win is not intellectual honesty it's masochism.

 Grimgold wrote:


you just said you'd never be convinced by any amount of evidence to the contrary, so I stopped bothering. The rest of us seem to be on the same page, Skill is the largest component, but it's not the only component, .

Ironic that you claim I couldnt be convinced by any evidence and proceed to say the same thing I've been saying. skill is THE Largest component, but its not the only component. Wecouldnt agree more. So what in the world do you mean.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:


you just said you'd never be convinced by any amount of evidence to the contrary, so I stopped bothering. The rest of us seem to be on the same page, Skill is the largest component, but it's not the only component, .

Ironic that you claim I couldnt be convinced by any evidence and proceed to say the same thing I've been saying. skill is THE Largest component, but its not the only component. Wecouldnt agree more. So what in the world do you mean.

"but its not the only component"

You really make it sound like you don't believe that at all.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:


you just said you'd never be convinced by any amount of evidence to the contrary, so I stopped bothering. The rest of us seem to be on the same page, Skill is the largest component, but it's not the only component, .

Ironic that you claim I couldnt be convinced by any evidence and proceed to say the same thing I've been saying. skill is THE Largest component, but its not the only component. Wecouldnt agree more. So what in the world do you mean.

"but its not the only component"

You really make it sound like you don't believe that at all.

You really need to stop trying to read into what I say and just read WHAT I say. Lol.

It's wearying.

The internet just likes to argue with itself sometimes and I enjoy watching it happen. But this gets silly. The ITC rankings and how they reflect faction strength is the subject. The thing that sparked this "segment" of discussion was that someone said that the rankings "showed" that Joshua Deaths success with one army vs. another was some "proof" that the codex's he scored worse with were worse, which caused me to point out that people do not naturally play the style of some armies as easily as they do others and there is more to that than just the raw score...but that his use of those numerous factions and still being able to pull off his massive score is truly indicative of his ability as a General because even if he's doing "worse" with them... well... His version of worse isn't too bad. I further used myself and my experience as an example of where you can see that with an army that plays to my strengths, I am very good no matter the label on the codex and those that I am not as naturally a fit for will see my scores be lower but that is ALSO a function of opportunities and if I play ONE army a lot more than others as many did, i am more likely to climb the rankings out of sheer experience and force of good practices with that force.

Look. The ITC Rankings within each faction are fair by the measure that anyone could have competed as hard, and some did...and some didnt. Those who did are to be lawded. Those who didn't are not to be ashamed. But understand that you don't make it tothe 400+ club by accident. You kicked serious butt, a lot of the time to get there. Those in the 500+ club did it at ever bigger events. All of them deserve respect and recognition. I'm not sure the rankings tell us much about the respective armies. Sheer lack of opportunities would cause any one faction to be outbalanced. Look at Militarum Tempestus. Almost no one dared! Yes for all we know the best player could be sitting there using them and he just doesn't. Who knows.

They're also a bunch of house rules imposing limitations on what you're allowed to do. That also makes them unrealistic.

We use some of the ITC rules. Maybe we should move to all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're also a bunch of house rules imposing limitations on what you're allowed to do. That also makes them unrealistic.

Ill beat you with whatever rules you want to use. Those in the ITC standings "get" that every tournament has rules and rulings on things. Never been to a single tournament where a TO Didnt have to rule on this or that. All ITC attempts to do imperfectly is provide the template for TO'S so they can easily move on to actually organizing and promoting. And it works in that regard. Most of the house rules as you call them (definitely not all) are voted on by you. So it is more often than not... the version of 40k that makes sense to tge majority. I am an outspoken person when it comes to the carelessness of how they ask their questions, but I do applaud the fact that they do it.

If you think you can beat the 400+ guys 3 out of five times, step up, or step off. The people in that upper echelon pown most people they play. I think you will find that most ITC rulings are ones you wouldnt dispute. Invisibikity is easily the dumbest thing they did in 40k so I dont think many people enjoy playing it RAW. if thats your one trick pony, ride it.

I'd love to do tournaments officially outside locals. However I have the following issues:
1. Due to me having to start everything over, my model count had been cut down and nothing is painted. At all.
2. I work in the healthcare industry and it isn't easy to get time off.
3. I'm schooling.

Plus I don't care what other people want. I play the rules as is. If you cannot prepare for Invisibility as written, that's on you.

I would like to take on Jancoran just to see what mistakes he finds when I play. To me, it feels like I don't have much input in the game when playing BA vs Tau or Eldar. How much better is Tempestus than BA? Probably not a huge gap, I'd say.

Dude, you're Blood Angels. You have no problem in the metagame!

Martel732 wrote:
I would like to take on Jancoran just to see what mistakes he finds when I play. To me, it feels like I don't have much input in the game when playing BA vs Tau or Eldar. How much better is Tempestus than BA? Probably not a huge gap, I'd say.

Blood Angels are a lot different from Militarum Tempestus so there's no comparison possible there. They are just absolutely different play styles in my experience. The ITC standings dont tell us much about Militarum Tempestus obviously but Blood Angels have some players with really good scores so I mean... Perhaps seeking them out for some advice could be a good idea.

Ultimately nothing will help you more than willingness to adapt. Just my opinion.

Strictly from the ITC rankings (as of Nov 4th) :

Top 3 BA : 324, 304, 273.
Top 3 MT : 357, 275, 150

I scrounged up the lists for the top player in each faction, posted here for discussion and interest.

Blood Angels CAD

HQ
Librarian (ML1), Veritas Vitae, Force Sword, Auspex
Mephiston
ELITES
Furioso Dreadnought, Frag Cannon, Melta Gun, Drop Pod
Command Squad, Melta Guns (x3), Drop Pod
TROOP
Tactical Squad (x5), Melta Gun, Sergeant with Infernus Pistol, Drop Pod
Tactical Squad (x5), Heavy Flamer, Sergeant with Infernus Pistol, Drop Pod
HEAVY
Fire Raptor, Heavy Bolter Sponsons

White Scars CAD

HQ
Librarian (ML2), Hunters Eye, Force Stave
TROOP
Scout Squad (x5)
Scout Squad (x5), Land Speeder Storm with Heavy Flamer
FAST
Storm Talon, Skyhammer Missile Launcher
Storm Talon, Skyhammer Missile Launcher
Drop Pod
HEAVY
Centurion Devastators, Grav Cannon and Grav Amp (x2), Sergeant with Grav Cannon and Grav Amp and Omniscope

Tempestus Militarum CAD

HQ
• Commissar
TROOP
• Scions x5 w/ x2 melta + taurox prime (Missile and auto cannons)
• Scions x5 w/ x2 melta + taurox prime (Missile and auto cannons)
• Scions x5 w/ x2 melta + taurox prime (Missile and auto cannons)
• Scions x5 w/ x2 flamers + taurox prime (gatling
and auto cannons)

Skitarii Maniple

TROOP
• Skitarii Vanguard x8 w/ x2 arc rifles, omnispex, taser goad
• Skitarii Vanguard x8 w/ x2 arc rifles, omnispex, taser goad
HEAVY SUPPORT
• x2 Onager Dunecrawlers w/ x2 Icarus Arrays

Execution Force Formation
• Eversor
• Callidus
• Vindicare
• Celuxsis

Interesting. Not a big fan of the Execution Force but it is interesting. He handles the anti-air via Skitarii. I handle it with IG. But either way works.

I don't have the Skitarii codex on my person, but if there's a formation to just get the Dunecrawlers that would've been the smarter choice. Nothing does AA better than them.

Otherwise I'd have gone with less Vanguard to fit Plasma Guns on the Scions instead.

Also that BA list is terrible. The Inferno Pistol? You won't even use the Melta Guns again, so why not pay less for the Combi-Melta?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also that BA list is terrible. The Inferno Pistol? You won't even use the Melta Guns again, so why not pay less for the Combi-Melta?

Explained by the list author :

The Inferno Pistols are literally hit or miss. When they work, they work well. But having that additional Melta shot has proven to be extremely useful in most circumstances.

It kills me that the top BA player is running White scars as an allied detachment, and still scored that low. In all fairness though that was probably before Angels blade, I suppose we'll see what things look like for them in upcoming tournaments.

Honest question here: How are you getting any viable data regarding individual factions from these results when most of these lists are barely 50% said faction?

 MarsNZ wrote:
Honest question here: How are you getting any viable data regarding individual factions from these results when most of these lists are barely 50% said faction?

You get more information about the player than you do the faction, as I've said.

 MarsNZ wrote:
Honest question here: How are you getting any viable data regarding individual factions from these results when most of these lists are barely 50% said faction?

Short answer; Every army has a few top builds, and we are comparing those, if those builds bring allies so be it.

Longer answer; The ability to bring allies is not unique to one list, all armies have that ability. Since we are looking at the top players for each faction, we can assume they bring the best allies for their lists. Assuming everyone brought their best allies we can still directly compare the base armies to each other because strength of allies available is another factor in army strength. For instance all of the IoM have great allies, and the fact that blood angels still placed last despite having access to those allies is very telling of the armies strength. I was hoping the top BA players were roughing it out and that's why they did so bad, but seeing they are using good allies makes it all the more clear how weak that list is. The Necrons don't have good allies, most lists with something the necrons can use are come apocalypse, so the fact they are mostly monofaction lists shows how strong the codex is. Tau and eldar on the other hand heavily borrow from each other, and we can see eldar splashing Tau are much more successful than tau splashing eldar, which shows the power gap between the two codices. I could go on, but you get the idea, there is lots to learn about factions form this.

Jancoran while no doubt being a good player, but is not in his element doing this kind of analysis. His point about learning about players is somewhat valid, take joshua death for instance, 3rd rated player overall and he had to use an illegal list to win a tournament with harlequins. How effeed is your army when it requires the third best player in the ITC to cheat to win a rogue trader scale tourney? We can break down the top twenty list of players and see the same pattern emerge in their win percentages with different armies as we see comparing all players which is a huge indicator that codex strength/the meta influences the game from the top to the bottom.

Counterpoint :

That list went 5-1 at BAO and tied for 10th, out of a field of 170. I'm looking at the standings -- 12th place also went to BA, once again 5-1.

1 list went undefeated, 4 lists had a single draw, everyone else in the top 15 also went 5-1. Composition of the top 15 :

Undefeated : Dark Angels
1x draw : Cult Mech, Eldar, 2x SM
5-1 : 3x Daemons, 2x SM, 2x BA, 1x Eldar, 1x AM, 1x Cult Mech

That doesn't seem nearly as bad! More interesting -- there is a pack of Eldar and Tau placing 15th-20th who scored more ITC points than the 2x BA players who placed higher than them. I'm not sure how ITC weights their scores -- is it better to score blowout victories, than simply win more games? I'd make sure you consider this too. Quantitative data is only as meaningful as the metrics it uses.

If anyone is curious about that 2nd BA list, here's what I dug up in comments at Frontline Gaming.

Blood Angels:
Libby dreadnaught, Warlord with Drop Pod
The FW nasty dread that is 13, 13, 12, ugly meltagun and such, 4 Hull Points. With Drop Pod.
Snipers
GravGun Devastators inna Drop Pod, Combat squads the other 5 marines
Melta Devastators inna Drop Pod, Combat squads the other 5 marines
Throw in some tactical Blood Angels. Maybe.

I.G.:
Vendetta, Wyverns x2, squad of guardsmen (veterans, IIRC) … Commissar?

That ugly Dread is likely the Leviathan.

 Grimgold wrote:


Jancoran while no doubt being a good player, but is not in his element doing this kind of analysis. His point about learning about players is somewhat valid, take joshua death for instance, 3rd rated player overall and he had to use an illegal list to win a tournament with harlequins. How effeed is your army when it requires the third best player in the ITC to cheat to win a rogue trader scale tourney? We can break down the top twenty list of players and see the same pattern emerge in their win percentages with different armies as we see comparing all players which is a huge indicator that codex strength/the meta influences the game from the top to the bottom.

That is immensely interesting to me. I'm not...in my element? Hehehe. Kay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Counterpoint :

That list went 5-1 at BAO and tied for 10th, out of a field of 170. I'm looking at the standings -- 12th place also went to BA, once again 5-1.

1 list went undefeated, 4 lists had a single draw, everyone else in the top 15 also went 5-1. Composition of the top 15 :

Undefeated : Dark Angels
1x draw : Cult Mech, Eldar, 2x SM
5-1 : 3x Daemons, 2x SM, 2x BA, 1x Eldar, 1x AM, 1x Cult Mech

That doesn't seem nearly as bad! More interesting -- there is a pack of Eldar and Tau placing 15th-20th who scored more ITC points than the 2x BA players who placed higher than them. I'm not sure how ITC weights their scores -- is it better to score blowout victories, than simply win more games? I'd make sure you consider this too. Quantitative data is only as meaningful as the metrics it uses.

If anyone is curious about that 2nd BA list, here's what I dug up in comments at Frontline Gaming.

Blood Angels:
Libby dreadnaught, Warlord with Drop Pod
The FW nasty dread that is 13, 13, 12, ugly meltagun and such, 4 Hull Points. With Drop Pod.
Snipers
GravGun Devastators inna Drop Pod, Combat squads the other 5 marines
Melta Devastators inna Drop Pod, Combat squads the other 5 marines
Throw in some tactical Blood Angels. Maybe.

I.G.:
Vendetta, Wyverns x2, squad of guardsmen (veterans, IIRC) … Commissar?

The cause of the points differential comes from WHEN you lose your first game.

You get 3 bonus points for each successive win before your first loss. So it is quite possible for someone to place higher but have less ITC points because they lost their first game instead of their 5th or 6th.

Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

Or, another BA list, imo.

Still, they did pretty well. That's 2x lists with BA primaries finishing in the top 15 of a major GT. No formations either.

It's not sexy "playing to the mission" but it obviously works in the ITC format. Similarities that I can see :

- A few high-strength psykers (can ID targets at S10)
- 1x dedicated Grav unit
- A super high speed FW centerpiece unit (Fire Raptor, Leviathan Dread)
- Some S8-S9 shooting, including Melta
- Wound stacking (templates or wyverns)
- Some Obsec
- Some Flyers

Nothing really stands out on paper but at this level of play I think you need to accept people know what they're doing.

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

Which is weird to me. Like, yeah codexes are super imba and there're some obscene things that can be done with eldar or warcon that just don't work in other codexes, but at the end of the day the average power level is so high if you play like a numpty you're gonna lose your whole army. Make enough bad plays and you can get tabled by mono-codex sisters or single heldrake CSM. Not to mention that these guys that have top tier performances always have copycats that never do anywhere near as well. People have made direct clones of Matt Roots list and ended the gts 3-3. Heck, Brandon Grant's list doesn't look like anything compared to some of the crazier stuff, or even Codex:SM versions of the same detachment and he destroys people.

I think the idea that codex matters more than skill comes more from friendly games than tournament games. I don't have a great overall W-L record at major tournaments 3-4 across the last two i did (had to skip day 2 of one) but some of the most interesting, even games I've ever played were in tournaments. Hell, my favorite match in recent memory was against a super-friends star that was so much about movement and tactics we didn't even roll dice until turn 3. I've never been blown out at a tournament(I've had frustrating matchups but heavy grav vs demons does that) and the people I've blown out were because 1. Droppod Culexus on a seer star that was out in the open(Actually still lost because we only made it to turn 3. Also killpoints wreck gladius). 2. Ork player got super frustrated turn 2 and forgot all of his rules and I'm not gonna babysit him through his codex at a tournament. 3. Tyranid player who was just there to have a giggle 4. Eldar player 4th game of the day that was talking to his friend the whole game.

Meanwhile I've seen people totally quit the game after friendly beer and pretzels because one guy thought that meant 'footslog khorne berserkers and warp talons' and the other guy thought 'Hey let's see what 2 Cataphractii captains can do in a medusa strike force with 2 dev squads!'

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

By your own logic, a list can indeed be terrible and place well because of the player. Lists can be evaluated independently of the person playing them and I can tell you as a BA player that those are not so hot.

ERJAK wrote:


at the end of the day the average power level is so high if you play like a numpty you're gonna lose your whole army. Make enough bad plays and you can get tabled by mono-codex sisters or single heldrake CSM. '

Wait a second now! Lol. I play both of those and I have more tournament wins with Sisters fo Battle than any other force! My Night Lords only have one Heldrake. hehehe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

By your own logic, a list can indeed be terrible and place well because of the player. Lists can be evaluated independently of the person playing them and I can tell you as a BA player that those are not so hot.

Yes. by my own logic, lesser lists (not terrible lists, I never said that) place well because of the player. Absolutely.

As proof of that, my own lists have gotten so much flakk over the years that the internet literally invented my nickname, Unorthodoxy (which I embraced and named my blog after).

Martel, and anyone who will listen, this game is a lot deeper than the STR and AP on your weapons. It is. It's one of the more complex games you will play and many shenanigans exist to mitigate the matchups you are overpowered in.

Bring a terrible list, you lose. Duh. Martel will follow that comment up by saying "Every BA list is terrible". Well thats bull crap. but any ways that aside, you have to bring a decent list that covers all the major bases. I don't think anyone is dumb enough to say otherwise. Having said that, as long as you have the tool bag, there are ways to mitigate the bad matchups. I have sort of made an art form out of doing it. I'm not special. You all are quick to point THAT out. So anything i can do, so can you. i travel all over the place for tournaments and see the different areas and their metas and you know what? there ain't really much difference. Same codex's, different city.

The difference is a willingness to look past what I can't do and look for what I can do...and try to do it well. Try to time it well more importantly. The second piece is an alertness to what the enemy does well... and a willingness not to play that game to the extent its possible. And that allows me to make MINOR tweaks to existing lists to compensate for the very few things i have no true answer for tactically.

the ITC standings will tell you about player skill. They wont say as much about the factions. You can glean the popularity of certain factions from it and you can guess based o nthat how people perceive the power levels of those codex's but that's all it is: perception. What makes it reality is the General.

That's the lens through which I see the world. Cynicism is like the cool kids club on the internet though so i probably wont win any converts. But that's okay.

" "Every BA list is terrible"."

Well, they are compared to White Scars lists. Army wide hit and run in a list with a dozen obj sec units, some of which are free, is probably pretty good at "playing the mission"

Martel732 wrote:
Lists can be evaluated independently of the person playing them

I don't know if I agree with this.

If player X can pull off 2+ Melta pistol shots with regularity, it's better than a Combi-Melta. If Player Y can't, the Combi-Melta is going to be superior.

This is a skill cap / strategy consideration.

I'm sure you understand how skill cap affects unit value in a game like Brood War. My buddy hates everything but carriers and dragoons becuae he hates to micro. His favorite unit is the defensive tower, his favorite strategy is attack-moving across the map. He'll never improve, despite playing for years, because his criteria for "good" is "ease of use".

I'm sure you can see the parallels right?

The Melta Pistol has literally half the range. For 5 points more you'd get two Combi-Melta.

Except in 40K, there are dice. No amount of skill makes it less likely for an infernus pistol to scatter out of range. That's the difference. I'm not microing my marines in 40K. I'm praying for die rolls. After playing Starcraft for some time, I can competently split my marines vs banelings. There is no analogous skill in 40K, imo. If I stumble my marines into banelings, that's on me in Starcraft. In 40K, bad stuff can just happen, and trying to use melta pistols makes that much more likely.

If I'm using deep strike mitigation in my list, I consider that list building, not player skill. I've totally thought about using melta pistols with no-scatter vanguard in a Dante-led Angel's Blade.

then...do it?

 Jancoran wrote:
then...do it?

The points don't quite add up, unfortunately. It's much better as a 2K list than a 1.850K list. Plus, sanguinary guard are really bad, and you have to take them to get Dante in an Angel's Blade.

Perhaps but a Sanguinary Priest nearby does a lot for Sanguinary Guard in my opinion. It certainly isnt a solution to their biggest weakness but it is one for most of their weaknesses. STR 8 AP 2 is still kind of a poppy situation but that's what Dante is for: tankeroo duty.

 Jancoran wrote:
Perhaps but a Sanguinary Priest nearby does a lot for Sanguinary Guard in my opinion. It certainly isnt a solution to their biggest weakness but it is one for most of their weaknesses. STR 8 AP 2 is still kind of a poppy situation but that's what Dante is for: tankeroo duty.

I don't know. Sanguinary priest is an expensive babysitter to just give FNP. I prefer SG naked honestly to keep them as cheap as possible. Priests were much better in 5th.

Sanguine Guard are bad because they require that much babysitting though. Death company only need the Hit And Run Dante provides. Sanguine Guard NEED Dante to tank hits AND a Priest to make them more durable. Just add a couple power Fists and Company are doing more, on top of being more durable to anything outside AP3.

Martel732 wrote:
In 40K, bad stuff can just happen, and trying to use melta pistols makes that much more likely.

The GT player's conclusion was the risk justified the reward. No scatter mitigation, no combi-melta, just a 6" range pistol out of a drop pod and dakkadakka can go feth itself.

That player doesn't have magic dice. So why do you think your opinions are so diametrical? You both have the same codex and rulebook. But you've got radically different attitudes towards risk acceptance.

In terms of Vanguard Vets, DC, Sang Guard -- in a GT players will be preparing for obvious opponents. That means a lot of Grav + Melta (WK, Riptides, Knights, vehicles), and a lot of anti-MEQ (Scatterbikes, Warp Spiders, Ravenwing, massed marines). Those BA lists which performed well had no pricey 2+ or 3+, aside from deepstriking Grav and Meltacide. Which is probably not coincidental. DC isn't more survivable than Warp Spiders, Grav Bikes are not more survivable than Ravenwing, Sang Guard with Priests are not more resilient than Riptides. And players are definitely preparing for these.

I know 'not tailoring' is a point of pride in your case, but if you don't adapt to meta you are going to be crushed by it. Though honestly I don't think it's the first time you've heard this argument. If you're intent on going mono-codex, I would try and pick apart what made these lists work so well at BAO, and what might be generally adaptable to your meta.

" just a 6" range pistol out of a drop pod and dakkadakka can go feth itself. "

Drop pod helps a lot because you get the 6" move.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Perhaps but a Sanguinary Priest nearby does a lot for Sanguinary Guard in my opinion. It certainly isnt a solution to their biggest weakness but it is one for most of their weaknesses. STR 8 AP 2 is still kind of a poppy situation but that's what Dante is for: tankeroo duty.

I don't know. Sanguinary priest is an expensive babysitter to just give FNP. I prefer SG naked honestly to keep them as cheap as possible. Priests were much better in 5th.

The sanguinary priest also does stuff. Hes not just there. He's another weapon, another wound, another combatant... People pay more for less.

 Jancoran wrote:

Bartali wrote:
Interesting that both BA lists here are terrible and could be improved by running almost any other marine faction instead.

So terrible in fact that they won five games at a major. Lol.

In that light, it is a shining example that what you DO with a list is often more important than the list itself. Not that we will ever convince the "Codex faction" of thought of that but that's my opinion.

Not quite. None of those lists will ever win a major GT regardless of player skill. I'd imagine skilled players with favourable match ups and bit a of luck can get top 20 with variety of lists, as these two have done.

you understand of course that they already have won GT's right?

I'm more curious how mono-build codex's have done rather then those splitting amongst with hard core allying going on.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm more curious how mono-build codex's have done rather then those splitting amongst with hard core allying going on.

In those cases, BA will never win then. That's what bugs me everytime people talk about DE or BA winning tournaments. It's usually (faction that struggles on it's own) + Eldar or White Scars or Tau.

Yeah but watch, it'll happen ONCE and suddenly they're good because apparently you can treat the exception as the norm in Jancoran's eyes!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah but watch, it'll happen ONCE and suddenly they're good because apparently you can treat the exception as the norm in Jancoran's eyes!

You just don't get it. I play the "exception" armies in YOUR eyes as a rule and I win. yet you keep acting like i did it just once or something.

What you need to do, as i invited you to do before, is actually ASK the people who actually know me. I even gave you the link to the forums i am regularly on in the area once before. Because even the people who don't like me, and of course anyone who thinks differently has detractors, respect my actual ability. YOU can come to grips with the fact that a Generals skill counts for a lot or you can continue on with the absurd thought that a Codex can move itself and plan itself around the board.

I for one do not understand why you take so little credit for your wins. Perhaps it is because this allows you not to have to take credit for your failures? Who knows. What I do know for a certainty is that nothing you're saying changes the outcome of any of my games. I know that for sure.

While we are on the subject of allies and mono-codex lists :

1st overall LVO -- Eldar with 31pts in Inquisition.
2nd overall LVO -- Eldar with 630pts in DE Corpsethief Claw.
6th overall LVO -- Eldar with 200pts in a DE allied detachment.
3rd overall Omegacon -- Eldar with a 370pt Knight Errant.
1st overall Lantasy -- Eldar with 275pts in Inquisition allies.
3rd overall Lantasy -- Eldar with 100pts in a VSG.
3rd overall Huzzah hobbies -- Eldar with 445pts in a DE CAD.
2nd overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 136pts in Inquisition allies.
5th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 210 points in a DE CAD.
6th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 160pts in a DE allied detachment.
7th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall Adeoticon -- Eldar with 140pts in a Culexus.
10th overall Adepticon -- Pure Eldar.
14th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 550pts in a WS CAD, 358pts in an AM allied detachment, and 140pts in a Culexus.
15th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 100pts in a VSG.
2nd overall March Madness -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
3rd overall March Madness -- Pure Eldar.
2nd overall Broadside Bash -- Pure Eldar.
3rd overall Scorched Earth -- Eldar with 580pts in Riptide Wing and 646pts in SW.
3rd overall Guardian Cup -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
2nd overall Terracon -- Pure Eldar.
1st overall NW Open -- Eldar with 940pts in Riptide Wing.
4th overall BAO -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall BAO -- Pure Eldar.
2nd overall Capital City -- Pure Eldar.
1st overall NOVA -- Eldar with 555pts in Riptide Wing, 140pts in a Culexus.
3rd overall NOVA -- Eldar with 555pts in Riptide Wing, 400pts in Piranha Firestream Wing.
6th overall NOVA -- Eldar with 150pts in a DE allied detachment.
2nd overall Michigan GT -- Eldar with 571pts in Riptide Wing, 120pts in a CD allied detachment.
3rd overall Michigan GT -- Eldar with 305pts in Harlequins, 144pts in Inquisition, and 140pts in a Culexus.

That's something like 24 lists that pull from another codex (including Fortifications). There are about 6 that don't. Credit to Blood of Kittens for such a comprehensive archive.

Point is, Eldar is winning on the strength of their pure codex about 20% of the time. The other 80%, they're using at minimum Servo-Skulls and at maximum more points in another faction. I don't really understand dakka's obsession over not using allies. Competitive players are not divas about codex purity.

Eldar are very good. Top codex, and noone can argue otherwise.

I'm not; I just don't own allies other than IKs.

 Jancoran wrote:
Eldar are very good. Top codex, and noone can argue otherwise.

A number of people in the past (Eldar Players predominantly) have in fact argued that point

Also it funny how a LOT of those top Eldar lists field a Riptide wing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also as far as why people dont like the ally matrix? Well it works great for the Have armies again, Tau, Eldar IoM (SMs) And not so well for the Have not armies Orks, Nids, I would argue CSM a well since your better off fielding a pure Demon army then CSM

Even if Orks could ally with other factions as well as Eldar/SMs can, you would still be better off taking the other armies units because atm the Ork/Nid codex sucks.

Eldar are far and away the best overall codex and still lend themselves well to taking allies in cases where that's necessary. That said, they're not unbeatable by other top tier armies, and matches between a good eldar list and a good Chaos Demon or SM or Tau or Warcon come down to mission design and player skill more often than not.

Side note: Saying 'Chaos' sucks and 'Imperials' are super broken because of the difference between SM and CSM is triggeringly unfair. It's pretty much the same as complaining that 'Chaos' is crazy broken and unfair and unfun for 'Imperials' to play against because of the difference between SoB and Chaos Demons(who have won the 2nd most big tournaments this year according to Bloodofkittens). The whole faction doesn't get to special snowflake because one book is bad. Only tangentially related to the topic but it's been coming up a lot and is infuriating when you play SoB, BA, IG, Deathwing, GK, or Inq.

2nd overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 136pts in Inquisition allies.
5th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 210 points in a DE CAD.
6th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 160pts in a DE allied detachment.
7th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall Adeoticon -- Eldar with 140pts in a Culexus.
10th overall Adepticon -- Pure Eldar.

Yikes thats a good run at Adepticon for the space elves.

 Ratius wrote:

2nd overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 136pts in Inquisition allies.
5th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 210 points in a DE CAD.
6th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 160pts in a DE allied detachment.
7th overall Adepticon -- Eldar with 34pts in Inquisition.
9th overall Adeoticon -- Eldar with 140pts in a Culexus.
10th overall Adepticon -- Pure Eldar.

Yikes thats a good run at Adepticon for the space elves.

Double wraithknight, full strength D, full strength invis at that tourney. Not what you normally see in ITC.

It's sad that those 6 T10 Eldar players were killing each other... Probably why they didn't take 1st overall and only got 1 in the Top 3.